Thursday, 13 March 2014

ParkingEye fail to impress judge. Contract only produced on the day; too redacted and too small to read

3JD10678 Parking Eye vs Rickard - 13th March 2014, Aylesbury County Court

In the defendant's own words:

The Judge ruled that Parking Eye had no standing to bring the case. PE requested the right to appeal which was refused and my request for costs was also refused.

The advocate for PE produced a copy of the PE contract with the landowner during the hearing but not before. This did not impress the Judge and he noted that the contract was both heavily redacted and the print too small to be readable by him.

Disappointed not to be awarded costs but couldn't be bothered to argue with the Judge as he noted that some of my submission had been after the technical process deadline but allowed it anyway. PE pointed out the technical breach but the Judge explained that he can take things into account at his discretion regardless.

Without your help (and the support of those that fund you) none of this would have been possible. Keep up the good work. Best regards,

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Another win based on the Prankster's excellent guides. ParkingEye execs, Friday tomorrow. Your turn in the barrel……………again. Are we having fun yet? You never know, you might win. Then you can publish a 'ParkingEye fight back against the Prankster' page. I wouldn't hold my hopes up too high though.

  2. They must spend a fortune in black ink.

  3. Dang! I'd have gone along to this had I known.

  4. Word must be getting out to all courts about PE's activity by now.
    Their dash for payment at all cost will surely have a hugely detrimental effect on the whole business.

    It's only a matter of time until a case goes to the top and becomes case law. Doubt if a PPC would go to such lengths though due to their inherently flawed business model. It will take someone prepared to pull out a bit of cash from his own pocket as a defendant against them.